Should We Have Kept Zack Greinke?

[pacopete4]

I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately and believe we made a mistake. Greinke has been lights out this year but overall as a Dodger, he’s just been the ace this team needs. Now I get hindsight is 20/20 but I truly believe we could’ve afforded his contract.

 

MONEY SPENT:

2013: Greinke- $19m or Lohse- $11m = +$8m

2014: Greinke- $26m or Lohse- $11m + Garza- $12.5 = +$2.5m

2015: Greinke- $26m or Lohse- $11m + Garza- $12.5 = +$2.5m

2013-15: Jean Segura Earning = $1.5m

*Greinke buyout year, which he most likely will do it sounds but just in case:

2016: Greinke- $26m or Garza- $12.5m = +$13.5m

2017: Greinke- $25m or Garza- $12.5m = +$13.5m

2018: Greinke- $26m or Garza option not invested = +$26m

 

Totals:

2013-15 = $11.5M more + another SP during that time period

2016-18 = $53m more would’ve been spent one Greinke had he stayed

 

PRODUCTION:

Dodgers

Greinke- 16.3 WAR with the Dodgers during his time

 

Brewers

Segura- 4.8 WAR w/Brewers

Lohse- 4.4 WAR w/Brewers

Garza- .1 WAR w/Brewers

TOTAL- 9.3 WAR

 

PROSPECTS:

Johnny Hellweg- Soon to be 27 year old that was lit up in A+ ball and even more lit up in AA ball this year. Consider him a throw away player at this point.

Ariel Pena- 26 year old who has been pretty solid at AAA that still has a chance at the big league club.

[jerichoholicninja]

Would having Greinke on this team have taken them to the playoffs last year? Maybe, but probably not.

Would having Greinke on this team have taken them to the playoffs this year? No.

Would having Greinke on this team have taken them to the playoffs next year? Almost certainly not.

 

Maybe you could make a case for 2017 and beyond but who knows how good or healthy he will be then. I love Zach and wish he was still a Brewer but he single-handedly could not make this team a contender. So no, he shouldn't have been kept.

[MrTPlush]

If anything we should go back and trade him for a different package.

 

If we kept him that would be what...$30mil+ extra(since I'm not buying your inclusion of Lohse/Garza as one)? What does that get us, maybe a slightly better package in a mid 2015 trade? It better be the #1 prospect in the game for $30mil. Not to mention what if Greinke never ended up pitching this well for us if he stayed? He could have produced just as much as Lohse for $10mil more...not good. Heck even more important he may not have opted out at the end of 2015 for us and we would be paying an aging player way more than he is worth.

 

No way I would go back and extend him.

[tmwiese55]

By that line of thinking then no player should be signed unless you're a WS contender. Which becomes an endless cycle: you'll never have a contender if you never sign and you'll never sign because you're not a contender. Why have a team then.

 

With Brew posted I would agree that in hindsight yes they should have if they got the exact same contract. However, at the time it was the right move because he wouldn't have signed before hitting FA and pitchers are such a risk injury wise that I don't think you'll ever see the Brewers hand out one of those monster deals like he got. Turns out he's been healthy the whole time, who knows if he had stayed maybe he gets hurt. I think they had to do it and it was the right move. Just too bad we haven't gotten anything from those pitchers yet.

[monty57]

I'd have to believe that the Dodgers would have outbid anyone for Greinke's services. We can't win a bidding war against them.

[MrTPlush]

I'd have to believe that the Dodgers would have outbid anyone for Greinke's services. We can't win a bidding war against them.

 

Can't forget that too...we would have just ended up as a bidder to run up the price. Much like what happened with Jose Abreu.

[tmwiese55]

Exactly, he wasn't signing before hitting free agency, at which point we have no shot. Had to trade him.

[MrTPlush]

By that line of thinking then no player should be signed unless you're a WS contender. Which becomes an endless cycle: you'll never have a contender if you never sign and you'll never sign because you're not a contender. Why have a team then.

 

Contending and making the playoffs is only a part of it. But if we look back and we still don't think we will compete where are we recouping that value? If we spend $30mil+ extra for the same result in the end there is no way you trade half a year of Greinke to recoup $30mil+ in value plus what we had to pass up on in 2012(which ended up not being much).

[reillymcshane]

You know, this is one of those questions that's often easy in hindsight, but it does make you ask about the team's approach with roster construction.

 

My main argument for signing Greinke to an extension is that we had no one ready or able to take the reins as a top-of-the-order starter. We signed Lohse, who was good, but he's not Zach Greinke. The next year we added Garza - between those buys they averaged $23.5M a year.

 

The big problem was we didn't have the $25M we needed in 2013 to sign Greinke - even if we had wanted. Lohse deferred $7M of his $11M salary, so it's not like we had all sorts of cash sitting around waiting to spend. To have fit Zach in, we would have to shed payroll - and we were playing guys like Yuni at 1B that year.

 

In the end, if it's one answer or the other - it probably would have been better to keep Greinke over Garza and Lohse. We would have had to rely on Tyler Thornburg or some cheap FAs to fill out the rotation - but Greinke is worth more than Garza/Lohse/Segura.

 

But if you can have third option, the best thing might have been to simply rebuild at that time. That's easy to say now since we didn't make the playoffs, but when you're trotting out guys like Yuni on a regular basis, that's a sign that your payroll is stretched thin, and you have no depth.

 

I think it's pretty indicative of the way the Brewers have done - and can do - business. We can't keep many top tier players. You might pull off having one guy like that, but not two and three. If you do have two, you better be producing top rate prospects who are getting paid cheaply. Instead, for Milwaukee, we get the 2nd and 3rd tier free agents. Suppan, Lohse, Wolf, Garza. Nothing wrong with getting these players, but you're paying a lot for mediocrity. Guys like Greinke are premium talents - costing twice these guys. They offer bigger reward, but bigger risk (injury, long contracts, etc.).

 

Again, I would say 'yes' to signing Greinke back in 2012, but that's only if the other option was what we ended up doing - adding guys like Garza and Lohse.

[tmwiese55]

By that line of thinking then no player should be signed unless you're a WS contender. Which becomes an endless cycle: you'll never have a contender if you never sign and you'll never sign because you're not a contender. Why have a team then.

 

Contending and making the playoffs is only a part of it. But if we look back and we still don't think we will compete where are we recouping that value? If we spend $30mil+ extra for the same result in the end there is no way you trade half a year of Greinke to recoup $30mil+ in value plus what we had to pass up on in 2012(which ended up not being much).

 

Then 29 teams every should not have signed anyone because they didn't win it all. And by having Greinke yes it does drastically increase the chances to make the playoffs and to actually win once you're there. I'm sure they tossed out some fair extensions at him and he told them he's going to FA and he got 50 mil more than we offered, we had no shot, had to trade.

[brewmann04]

Bottom line could never have afforded him

[MrTPlush]

By that line of thinking then no player should be signed unless you're a WS contender. Which becomes an endless cycle: you'll never have a contender if you never sign and you'll never sign because you're not a contender. Why have a team then.

 

Contending and making the playoffs is only a part of it. But if we look back and we still don't think we will compete where are we recouping that value? If we spend $30mil+ extra for the same result in the end there is no way you trade half a year of Greinke to recoup $30mil+ in value plus what we had to pass up on in 2012(which ended up not being much).

 

Then 29 teams every should not have signed anyone because they didn't win it all. And by having Greinke yes it does drastically increase the chances to make the playoffs and to actually win once you're there. I'm sure they tossed out some fair extensions at him and he told them he's going to FA and he got 50 mil more than we offered, we had no shot, had to trade.

 

You don't understand what I am saying. If we are looking in hindsight and still don't think we can win with him the only way going back in time to extend him is a good idea is if we somehow can recoup all the money spent. Seeing we would try to compete every year that means he wouldn't be traded until mid-2015 when we are totally out of it. Trying to trade half a year of a player for $30+ in value would be difficult/doubtful.

 

All I am saying is NO we should not have kept Greinke because I don't see us making the playoffs with him and I don't see us recouping value on all the money spent and prospects passed up on.

[Bombers]

I'd have to believe that the Dodgers would have outbid anyone for Greinke's services. We can't win a bidding war against them.

Maybe so, but I have said this in the past. I would rather overpay for high-end, top of the league pitching vs paying 2 mid tier guys who are just alright. Just alright, nets you a just alright win %. If we rewind even further and say we might as well just resigned Sabathia, that works out the same. Front end of contract = great. Back end = bad. Greinke's back end of his contract remains to be seen but he is already 31.

In 2009 we would rather pay Suppan & Looper $17.5 vs $15 for Sabathia

In 2010 we would rather pay Suppan & Wolf $22 vs the $25 for Sabathia

In 2011 we would rather pay Wolf & deplete our farm system for Greinke for $23 vs the $25 for Sabathia.

... It's a vicious cycle. Now we are saying instead of paying Lohse + Garza, we could have been paying for Greinke. The issue remains the same, unless the Brewers can fill 4/5 of their rotation with home grown talent, they will never be able to overpay for one of the best pitchers in baseball.

[FVBrewerFan]

It's not the amount of the contract in any given year, it's about the length. Yes, he would have been worth the investment so far. He could also be injured next year and you would have $25MM dead money for 3 years, plus a ton of money to pay an aging Ryan Braun.

 

That's what just kills a team like the Brewers. I would have no problem paying a top shelf SP or a big bat a lot of money for a couple years. But those guys can't be had for a short term deal. It is very frustrating, but the downside is just too great to sign a big name guy to a long term deal. I think the Brewers can do that with one guy at a time, and for now that guy is Braun.

[monty57]

I look at it this way:

 

1) We have a maximum payroll. For simplicity, let's say that's $100M.

2) We need 25 players on the roster, so the average per player has to reach no more than around $4M.

3) Therefore, signing one guy to $25M basically means we'll need to counter that with six guys playing for league minimum.

 

This is simplified, but for everyone we're paying over $4M, we have to have someone (or a bunch of guys) playing for under $4M. The only way to do this is to have a very strong farm, which you can't have when you trade away the farm to obtain the guy you want to pay $25M.

 

And yes, it makes it even harder when you pay big money to bad players. The trick is to find another route that isn't either "sign a guy to $25M" or "use the same money to sign bad players."

 

The converse to my earlier point is that for every good player you have at league minimum, you have freed up $3.5M in "excess reserve" to use on another player. The more good, young players you have, the more "excess reserve" you have. My "route" would be to find a way to stock up on these cheap players, building a solid core from there while giving myself money to fill in the roster around them with decent players.

[3and2Fastball]

It would have only worked if we had the Dodger's coaching staff and Dodgers stadium, too. Bonus points if the Brewers had more road games in San Diego & San Francisco than Cincy & Wrigley.

[brewcrewdue80]

As the cool kids said in the not to far past....Clown Question Bro.

 

It's like a stock market decision. All-in on Greinke or Hedge you investment with Lohse/Garza+Segura/Hellweg/Pena We lost Hellweg/Pena but 3 to 1 on equal money. One injury to Greinke and all 25mil is wasted. Having no #2 or a SS to show for your money spent. You have Greinke and as a small market you believe to be looking to trade him at some point. Again Injury can wipe out those best laid plans. 200mil+payrolls can afford that kind of risk. Not 100mil. Just like as Greinke probably opts out of the contract, the Dodgers offer him a wimpy 16mil QO and get a draft pick in return. Let's say Greinke goes down to injury TJ right now. What are the Brewers doing? Offering that QO? He'd be hurt the entire 2016season. Dodgers, doesn't matter if they want that pick bad enough.

[danzig6767]

Bottom line could never have afforded him

Not only that, Greinke very well could have preferred living on the west coast vs Milwaukee. I certainly would have and i've lived most of my life in Wisconsin, but despise the climate here. He also has a wife who may have preferred living in LA vs Wisconsin for a variety of reasons besides climate.

 

When it comes to the upper tier of athletes in pro sports, clearly overall money usually plays a huge factor in where they choose to sign multi-year contracts, but they'll end up extremely wealthy regardless of where they sign.

 

1.So these guys often also factor in the city where they'll likely live for 3-4-5-6-7 years.

 

2. If they have a family, do the wife and kids want to stay where they are, move elsewhere, or don't care that much either way.

 

3. An elite athlete might look at if they took a big money contract from a lower revenue team, would that likely hamper that team from keeping and/or getting good players around him?

 

My gut feeling is that Greinke likely wouldn't have stayed even if the Brewers had offered the exact same contract as the Dodgers did. Not that he hated his time here at all. In fact, he's had pretty much only nice things to say about his tenure in Milwaukee, but that doesn't mean he was also interested in signing a multi-year extension here.

[jerichoholicninja]

Bottom line could never have afforded him

Not only that, Greinke very well could have preferred living on the west coast vs Milwaukee. I certainly would have and i've lived most of my life in Wisconsin, but despise the climate here. He also has a wife who may have preferred living in LA vs Wisconsin for a variety of reasons besides climate.

 

2. If they have a family, do the wife and kids want to stay where they are, move elsewhere, or don't care that much either way.

 

Stuff like this gets said all the time about players, but how many players actually live year round where they play? Seems like every road trip Rock says so and so lives here so they get to sleep in their own bed tonight. If playing where you live was that big of a deal shouldn't players be knocking down the door to play for the Diamondbacks?

[brwrsfan]

Our only shot would have been an extension while he was still signed. It seemed like we were making progress on one and he was actually considering it and then a Giant (I think Matt Cain??) got a huge deal, and Greinke's price then sky rocketed.

[AZBrewCrew]

I would have preferred we kept ZacK Greinke. Zach is a scrub I hear

[Invader3K]

Our only shot would have been an extension while he was still signed. It seemed like we were making progress on one and he was actually considering it and then a Giant (I think Matt Cain??) got a huge deal, and Greinke's price then sky rocketed.

Yes, that's basically what happened, as I recall. Zach, Prince, and CC all left, not due to lack of effort from the Brewers, but because those players all knew they could get way more on the open market.

[Dragonbait]

Should we have. Yes.

Could we have. NO!

[pacopete4]

I still think there is more money that MA could be putting towards this team. If Greinke is kept and we give him $25m/year for a couple of years, maybe we need to find in house players at other positions but we would still have the main core we do now.

[craigharmann]

In hindsight, I wouldn't have even traded for Greinke in the first place. We'd still have control of Lo Cain, Escobar and never had to go through Yuni B. Just like Prince, Greinke wouldn't have signed long term with the Brewers. Develop from within, develop from within, develop from within. That's got to be the mantra of the new GM. Invest in scouting, invest in minor leagues and develop a system wide strategy and plan as to how to take a player and get them through the system building up their talents. I look at Houston and see what they did and they now have one of the top farm systems in all of baseball. All because of a system wide strategy. Which I think the Brewers should replicate.